Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B1C42D9DB for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 21:14:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 18099 invoked by uid 500); 17 Jul 2012 21:14:41 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 18043 invoked by uid 500); 17 Jul 2012 21:14:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-user@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 18035 invoked by uid 99); 17 Jul 2012 21:14:41 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 21:14:41 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=FSL_RCVD_USER,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of nilesh.vijay@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.48 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.160.48] (HELO mail-pb0-f48.google.com) (209.85.160.48) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 21:14:35 +0000 Received: by pbbrq8 with SMTP id rq8so1623579pbb.35 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:14:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=SC5zkJntHi4lWN2xMmsQT07YE8hP5t+EkNgGd93NK2A=; b=FmfOwBumscwsHKbpg1p2EuSLDeqT8o8WyH7x4QSaNyKA3WSAZ/8HDmerCTjVRthRBP 4PeYRw6GlCJdjbrq3ctycNU+00Ha9aAKUFt/twDqhcdUIS0H/n7fW2lSz/AUppQ22pK0 mgYvjfjjjVbDZk2Agl+GShfARM3WoRYDZa2Oxdowrvsif/t7VkqioKW78eaIRcMKMOj7 dO5IK9QIdK1cMH8GV1VI+ctrMkbkyfZVdv/TCaMlnayKzBs+MfoAN2C6PoSPmE4DdIYs NS7MqRk8YQwMMpAlwTxhQJg2q21Ibb2WloFGgeozC2QqQELXfKd7XxWwejc/zmRgSff3 Oi/w== Received: by 10.68.191.41 with SMTP id gv9mr1828461pbc.45.1342559654767; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:14:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.66.74.7 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:13:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Nilesh Vijaywargiay Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:13:34 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Lucene 2.x to 4.x upgrade possible? To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff1c0884fed9304c50d07d6 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --e89a8ff1c0884fed9304c50d07d6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Folks, I need your help in determining whether we upgrade to 3.6 or wait till 4.0 becomes stable. We are currently using 2.x version of lucene and would like to upgrade to 3.6(and 4.0 ultimately). But we were informed by few blogs that 4.0 will not be backward compatible which means that the our customers who currently have 2.x will not be able to upgrade to our latest release which would have 4.0. Another blog mentioned that people using 2.x and looking upgrade to 4.0 should wait till 4.0 becomes stable. We are kind of confused with contracting thoughts here. Does it mean that 4.0 ALPHA doesn't support backward compatibility and recommendation is to use 4.0 stable for backward compatiblity? Basically, to embark on process of upgrading lucene to 3.6(and 4.0 later) depends on whether customer having 2.x can upgrade to 4.0 or not. Thanks --e89a8ff1c0884fed9304c50d07d6--